What's wrong with (private) religious discrimination/prejudice?

[KrazyHorse]

Linear estimate

With the resolution of the census data, you can get a lot more accurate than that.

a) Really? How do you propose that, from the table I posted? I was too lazy to find another estimate

b) 10 to 19 is only one doubling and the midpoints are only a 50% increase apart. Things tend to be fairly linear on that scale. I'm not doing an estimate of 1 person business based on 1-10 person estimates

c) all I claimed is that my estimator was probably improved by the linear fit

[MikeH]

I probably phrased that badly due to not knowing anything about US legal process. From my research a lot of the previous amendments to title VII seem to have been after SCOTUS rulings that upheld constitutional rights, that then made it onto revisions of the Civil Rights Act, I guess only to make the penalties statutory?

[Ramo]

a) Really? How do you propose that, from the table I posted? I was too lazy to find another estimate

b) 10 to 19 is only one doubling and the midpoints are only a 50% increase apart. Things tend to be fairly linear on that scale. I'm not doing an estimate of 1 person business based on 1-10 person estimates

c) all I claimed is that my estimator was probably improved by the linear fit

I was just giving you ****.

[KrazyHorse]

The commerce clause gives the feds the power to protect groups from private discrimination in certain circumstances. It doesn't instantly grant protection itself

[KrazyHorse]

I was just giving you ****.

I know, but I like talking about things like this

[MikeH]

Anyway, long story short. Rah's totally right. It's illegal to not hire someone based on religion in the US. Although there might be some exceptions for small firms in some states. I can't be arsed looking at the legislation for every state.

Team Moderator 1 - 0 Ben

[Sava]

it can be very difficult (sometimes) to prove discrimination cases like that unless the employer is bat**** retarded and specifically states, "I don't hire you islamicjewdite bastard heathens"

[Ben Kenobi]

Anyway, long story short. Rah's totally right. It's illegal to not hire someone based on religion in the US.

Unless you happen to be one of the 98 percent of firms under 15 people.



Hilarious thread.

What ever happened to the good ol' days when the mods simply flattened posters like MtG? The new crop is nowhere near as good as the giants.

[Ramo]

I know, but I like talking about things like this

1-9 is much larger than the payroll for 10-19. Linear is going to be way off. So Ben's number inches a tad bit higher. Still not 50%.

I have to say that I'm kind of tempted to toss those numbers into Matlab at this point. Looks like an interesting distribution.

[KrazyHorse]

1-9 is much larger than the payroll for 10-19. Linear is going to be way off. So Ben's number inches a tad bit higher. Still not 50%.

That's because most smallish retailers probably have ~5 employees. There's a big jump to 10+

[rah]

See even when he's wrong he refused to admit it. Not just a bigot, but an asshat to boot.

It's not worth the effort. (yes, I know I should already know this but I just can't refrain sometimes)

[MikeH]

Maybe he missed the bit where I said most states have additional laws that cover all companies.

He's not great at reading.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh, and 360 >> 260?

(the 40 million for no employees is likely mostly for firms that went belly-up at some point during the year; I assigned them to small biz out of charity)

[Ramo]

Huh? It's 360 without the no employee category. No, I wouldn't say >> for the purposes of ignoring terms in an expansion, but colloquially, sure.

You also have to normalize. 10 > 9.

[Ben Kenobi]

Maybe he missed the bit where I said most states have additional laws that cover all companies.

I read the part where you said you couldn't be arsed to prove it.

KH is right, most jurisdictions exempt small businesses.

Edit, and Imran already slapped you down on that MikeH.